Introduction
This chapter draws the threads together and attempts a viewing of the whole tapestry. As we take a step backward from the craftwork, we can survey the scene in its entirety. Yet we dare not lose sight ofthe varied stitches, the creative additions that makes the whole unique. Always there is the need to be open to different interpretations and irisights stemming from the observer. For so much arises from the symbol, be it thinking, feelings, collective memories and so on, that for each of us, coming as we do from different locales and with our particular experiences, the imagewillimpinge on the mind and senses with a unique peculiarity.
For each personisan expression of that uniqueness, born as a life-force of the Divine creation, situated at an historical moment for a particular purpose which only that person can fulfil.1And the fulfilling ofthat purpose can never be achieved outside of the social sphere, it must always be within and for a community.2 This is beyond mere consciousness of the other, but it is the contextualization ofthe inner reality.3 Thus I suggest that we surrender, albeit temporarily, but with sincerity, the declaration of a sole claim to truth, in order to be able to hear of the other's symbolic universe; thrusting aside that kyiarchical form of thinking that says, ifwe forego our stance and listen, then wewillbe undermined and in danger of losing the battle.4
For without question, the history of Christianity containssadstories of battles for power, and its misuse of power. The need for a sole claim of truth is surely opposed to our
1I have called you by name (Isaiah 43: 1-4).
2The image of relationship: "God-as-Ioving-movement-between-people" (Maitland 1983: 17).
3Love for the other and discovery of the self(McIntosh 1998: 210).
4'Kyiarchical' is Fiorenza's term meaning the power displayed by the master or lord(WeePublication 1997: 2).
commission to build the Kingdom of God.Ifthe Divine Power is for the liberation of all, then what can be in opposition? I speculate that it lies in the mind-set which fears
transformation. Its agenda is maintenance rather than mission, preservation rather than progression, and it works powerfully against that transformative hope which enlightens the reformist and liberationist position in feminist theology, which undergirds the recovery of incipient theology, which ratifies the conviction of inclusivity. Thishope oftransformation is evident in the feminist argument for a holistic and participative approach to spirituality and in its eagerness to reconstitute theological discourse. This is the reconstructive theology that feminists are seeking.
Uncovering the hidden discourse or incipient theology is but one means of encouraging conversation, both within and outside the church. There is a sense of urgency for already too many have been thrust aside and disregarded, crushed and discarded with a contempt that can only leave us weeping like the women of Jerusalem It is at such times that we journey in faith just as Jesus stumbled towards the enactment ofhis rejection. Then we receive reassurance from his words, "Do not weep for me, rather weep for yourselves"
(Luke 23: 28).
Where does that leave us now as we survey this study and look for a way into tomorrow? I would suggest that each of us must honestly acknowledge our own position, and be willing to beopen to the dynamic of change, the dynamic of a living God, always ready to receive new understandings for transformation, both in ourselves and in the church. For the terror of today which threatens humankind is the dogma that our worldview today must be forced uncritically into the morrow. Karen Armstrong (1993: 432) cites Peter Berger: "The American scholar notes that we often have a double standard when we compare the past with our own time. Where the past is analysed and made relative, the present is rendered immune to this process and our current position becomes an absolute."
Erhard Gerstenberger (1996: xiv) picks up this point when he writes:
Our question goes far beyond merely paYing attention to
theological tracts about an appropriate conception of God for our time. The whole contemporary relation between men and women is at issue, the broad effects of patriarchal ideas of God on social and
ecclesiastical life.Itis a question ofthe intimate relationship between unjust social orders and false understandings of God, of the liberation of all people who have suffered under patriarchal claims to dominion.
This study has set out to show how three select groups of women see God.Itshows how that imaging can at times differ from the traditional image and yet maintain an integrity and truth that is meaningful and powerful for the recipient. This final chapter will draw the various aspects together. Within a framework offeminist theology I will locate the
particular contemporary situation, and suggest direction for finding liberating images of God. I have identified five categories which have emerged from the group discussions, and will use these to explore the issues which have arisen. The categories are: patriarchy, women's experience of spirituality, images of God, authority in the traditional church, and woman-church. They have been categorised as such for the intention of this study whilst acknowledging that a certain overlapping of issues is inevitable. Iwillplace the
experiential within a hermeneutical circle which allows dialogue with the witness ofthe past and contends with issues of the present. I willattempt to situate the findings of this thesis within other scholarship.
Women's Experience of Patriarchy: God as Father
Erhard Gerstenberger in his book Yahweh: The Patriarch enters the dialogue and argues for the very openness that I am promoting:
Theology dare not hide behind our ancestors; it must relate to the situation of the present world and the contemporary search for God.
Just as surely as the living God of the biblical witness is still at work today, the images of God that we sketch in response to that work must differ from those of the Bible. Seen in that perspective, the variety of theological traditions in the Bible itself does not hinder but rather provides a license for our search for a proper contemporary confession of God. (Gerstenberger 1996: 82)
This means that we cannot fail to take tradition seriously. As our worldview changes, as
the paradigms shift, we have a need to draw oil tradition or else we are in danger of floundering in the shoals of relativism and losing our footing in shifting sands. To extend the metaphor, we need to be grounded, but the tradition from which we draw must be critically surveyed, employing a feminist hermeneutics of suspicionifwe are not to be enmeshed in historical ideologies which have distorted ideas of freedom and justice and served to promote the interests ofthe dominant.
The concern with power and patriarchy arose
In
all three groups as the discussion turned to the use of the dominant image for God: God as Father.Itbecame evident that in theAlternative Women's group and with three members in the Julian group, that patriarchy was a significant problem. However it did not appear to be an issue for the group from Imbali. This group explained to me that in Zulu, the pronouns are not gender defined, so that reference to a male God is not so emphatic in the biblical text. They also had few problems with the ~~-<>f_Godas a father. On the contrary, for four of them, they said that as single mothers raising children on their own, they needed the notion of a male presence sharing parental duties. One woman said, "I can turn to God as a Father and he is there to give me the strength and support which 1 need when I'm struggling to feed them. 1 know he will provide." The image of God as the male provider is a dominant one in this group. When asked to unpack what they understood by the word 'father', they used words such as "strong, in charge, in control, the provider, the authority figure." Yet some ofthe women had been abandoned by the fathers oftheir children leaving them to do the caring and raising. For the women who were married, they too saw the role of the male as 'head of the house', the main provider.
This concept of God prevailed, despite the fact that all of them were professional women, in positions of authority, and earning adequate salaries. They explained that this is Zulu culture and that though things were changing, the roles still remain within their
stereotypes.I The women were pleased with the idea of change, but were resigned to the ways things are at present. "We work very hard to keep our children fed and with clothes, and the men come and demand money to spend, but there is nothing we can do.Itis very
IBrigalia Barn (cited in Women Hold up Halfthe Sky 1991: 367) writes of African culture and warns of the danger of placing the blame for sexism on the culture, whereas the problem is about male attitudes. Also Emma Mashinini (cited in Ackermann 1991: 350) writes that "if people want to practice sexism, they should not damage their own people by saying that it is their black culture."
difficult for some women who have very little." I asked them whether they had problems with women being priests, a role traditionally reserved for men, and they said 'no'. They could see that women couldbeof value in the leadership ofthe church, but they were unsure how it would be for Zulu women as priests. In theory, they said, there are no difficulties, but the male Zulu priests might not like it.1
The ambivalence between the life-experience ofthe women and their image of God is an intriguing one. Itis a challenge to the suggestion that our image of the divine responds directly to our image of others and ourselves. This imaging of God as the essential male provider despite their own capabilities as financially independent, highlights the possible internalisation that patriarchy can engender, and the desire for an external locus of
authority. However James Scott (cited in West 1999: 45) suggests that it is the conspiracy of 'the hidden transcript' which remains veiled: "Discretion in the face of power requires that a part of the 'self' that would reply or strike back must lie low.Itis this self that finds expression in the safer realm ofthe hidden transcript." The experience ofthe Imbali group also serves to remind us that many women do not want to shed an image of God as Father.
Johnson (1993: 63) writes "the ambiguity of the Christian tradition lies preciselyinthis fact, that despite its sexism it has served as a strong source for countless women throughout the centuries and continues to do so today." Indeed, one woman from the Alternative Church group said, "I am fully equipped with the patriarchal baggage. My image is very patriarchal: Father God. That is my personal image, then I talk tohim."At a later stage she said, "I cannot picturehim. I just talk tohim."Out of her need to find a father figure she added, "I find I need a male God. That is my reality, my own experience."
The earlier chapters have shown that the issue of patriarchy and its subsequent connection with male language for God is paramount in feminist discourse. Feminist theologians have pointed out that historical accounts indicate that Israel worshipped both god and goddess, that the worship of a monolithic god, Yahweh, began only in the era of the exilic period in Babylon. Gerstenbergerisadmirably honest as he recounts how arrogant and sexist decisions and judgements have been made at the expense of women, carried outinthe
II must add my own experience to this comment. As a white woman who is a priest, I presided at the altar many times over four years in the parish ofNgcwayi, Natal, and also at Izingolweni, Umzimkulwana, and I never encountered a single instance of antagonism or rejection from any Zulu-speaking person (priest or lay).
In fact, I received great warmth and appreciation.
name of God who was viewed as male:
Thisfact is indisputable, and thus should not be suppressed,
glossed over, or endlessly debated. From the prohibition of "mixed marriages" in late Old Testament texts to the degradation of women by many ofthe church fathers, to the persecution of witches at the beginning ofthe modem era, and to the exclusion of women from the priestly office and other areas of church leadership, there has been a straight line of male admiration of self and contempt for women in the Judeo-Christian tradition. (Gerstenberger 1996: 82)
I have argued for the use of a hermeneutics of suspicionifwe are to unearth the potential for liberation from within a patriarchal tradition. Itis only through such a hermeneutics that the emergence of a monolithic, masculine God can be challenged and liberated. Paul Johnson (1996: 48) states the obvious. "When first the Ancient Egyptians, then the Ancient Hebrews, started to worship a single god, it did not occur to them that this god could be anything but masculine. When gods became God, they acquired an umbrella masculinity in this single persona, who absorbed the female attributes ofthe old goddess. Johnson continues to say that he foresees no problem, therefore, with women who would refer to God as She,"ifthey find it more helpful, and think of God as womanly...They do not really believe God has male or female characteristics any more than they believe that statues are divine." (:48). Unfortunately he continues, "At the same time, it is wrong for feminists to press for changes in the liturgy to make references to God non-gender specific, and still more wrong for the ecclesiastical authorities to give way to them." Johnson emphasises that he is all for tolerance and latitude. Sadly, it seems that those attitudes must only come from those who struggle with exclusive language, and not apparently from the dominant group.
Our conclusion must be, that however commendable it is to hear from those others, such as Gerstenberger, who admit to a history of sexism, patriarchal thinking remains firmly fixed, with few indications of transformation, especially in the church and liturgy. Attitudes appear to have changed little despite the feminist critique merely becoming more overt in
its resistance, and attempts to change the language encountering increased opposition.I I would hazard the opinion that very littlewill change in this area until alternative thinkers fonn part ofthe official liturgical commissions, andthis would involve an undertaking that the liturgy belongs to the people and not the leadership.
Meanwhile for those other women in the study groups who are struggling with sexist language and male imagery, their response is either resignation or abdication. Considering the possibility ofthe church's image of God becoming more inclusive, a member ofthe Julian group said resignedly, "I don't think the church could present God as a wise, loving old granny sitting in her kitchen. I think the church's God supports the status quo and holds everything together, meaning tradition, and is not too concerned about liberation. It prefers the rich and powerful to the poor and weak." Another woman from the Julian group, who attends church regularly, said, "More and more I feel isolated by the church, because I strongly resist making allowances for the use of exclusive language, after a lifetime of doing so. People in leadership need to be more attuned to the current cry for inclusive language." But a woman from the Alternative Church group, explaining her abdication, wrote, "Look, I do believe that the church needs to be more inclusive but quite honestly I have stepped out, so to speak. I find that going to church too often creates an irritation in me." Later in the interview she.expanded on this, "I actually think we talk very little about God in church - it's a wafty sort of concept. It's much easier to fonn a concept of Jesus. I don't think I've discussed or really heard much about God in a way that I can really
understand from a church." As can be heard, the urge to change the language of the church is no trivial matter for these women. Elizabeth Johnson (1992: 46) says, "Images of God are not peripheral or dispensable to theological speech, nor as we have seen, to ecclessial and social praxis. They are crucially important among the many coloured veils through which divine mystery is mediated and by means of which we express relationship in return."
Delving into tradition to unearth liberating texts and images for God is a powerful and meaningful way of extending this relationship, but more is demanded of usifwe are to seriously challenge oppressive structures and world view~.For the subject matter is about power, and women must choose to become agents in their own history in order to claim
IThe power of Naming refers to the 'backlash' in the States (Fiorenza 1996: xvi).
power for themselves. "We are seeking for our identity, for ourselves as made in the image of God. We are claiming the full humanity of woman" insisted one woman from the
Alternative Church group.
This struggle for liberating power is rooted in the context of poverty as defined by Gutierrez (1996: 105),I and we cannot deny that for many women there is a triple oppression: the material poverty ofthe black woman. I do not care, or dare, to speak for black women; their voices are emerging in ways that are articulate and powerful. In this study I have sought to find a hermeneutic that is liberating for all, one that divines a path through oppressive texts. Contending with patriarchy as a form of oppression undergirds feminist critical consciousness, and this is manifested in the reconstructive work of feminist scholarship and in the experience of the women in this study. These women are recognising how language can be used as a means of control.
Brian Wren makes the linkbetween language and control, and asks, "What power and privilege does God- talk help to justify, legitimise and perpetuate?" (Wren 1989: 81).
Language and action cannot be separated, it informs our lives. Feminists are seeking to rectify the semi-sighted vision by claiming the power of naming. They point out that whoever names the world owns the world.Itis a given that the exercise of power and privilege in language has the capacity to promote and perpetuate sexism, as in racism, homophobia and xenophobia. The maleness of God cannot and must not be shrugged offas 'only a metaphor,' (McFague 1983: 29), for as the women in the groups are showing, exclusive images and concepts can provoke feelings ranging from irritation to alienation, be perceived as spiritually damaging, which can erupt into anger and eventual abdication.
Rather than using the word 'metaphor' we need a way of speaking of God that neither literalises nor idolises, says McFague (1983: 29). There must be ways found that gives licence to speak about God as well as indicate the limits of such speech. We must investigate possibilities for transformative, revolutionary models. The model of God the Father is, in itself, powerful and profound, but ithasestablished hegemony over the Western religious consciousness that only new metaphorical language can break.
IGutierrez's definition of the 'poor' is inclusive: "concrete poor people, the dispossessed, and the oppressed, wherever there is an element of conflict" (Gutierrez 1996: 105).